TemplateEU DSA

DSA transparency report template fields and cadence

Use this outline to scope a Digital Services Act transparency report against the harmonised EU templates, not an invented internal report format.

It separates annual Article 15 reporting, online-platform additions, VLOP/VLOSE six-month reporting, statement-of-reasons database evidence, and publication records.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
May 26, 2026
Sections
8

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
6

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated May 26, 2026
Overview

The DSA transparency report template should start from the official CSV/XLSX templates in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2835. Build one report per service, complete the quantitative and qualitative templates that apply to the service tier, publish the report in a machine-readable and easily accessible format, and keep each published version available for the required retention period.

Section 1

Applicability matrix for the template

Do not use one flat template for every service. The implementing regulation states that the reporting obligations under Articles 15, 24 and 42 are not identical, and the first column of the official templates marks which rows apply to which providers.

Use this matrix before collecting data so teams do not add unsupported fields or omit rows that apply to their service.

  • All intermediary-service providers in scope of Article 15: report identification, Member State orders, applicable content-moderation information, automated-means information, and the qualitative template rows marked for all providers.
  • Hosting services, including online platforms: include Article 16 notice-and-action data where the official template marks the row for hosting services or online platforms.
  • Online platforms: add internal complaint-handling, out-of-court dispute settlement, repeat-misuse suspension, trusted-flagger, and statement-of-reasons evidence where those obligations apply.
  • Micro or small intermediary-service providers that are not VLOPs are treated differently under Article 15(2); record the basis for any exemption instead of publishing a blank invented report.
  • VLOPs and VLOSEs: apply Article 42 reporting at least every six months, but the start of the reporting cycle depends on the designation date and the biannual cycles are not harmonised; include the VLOP/VLOSE rows such as language-level automated-means data, moderator resources for VLOPs, and average monthly active recipients by Member State.
Section 2

Report identification and publication block

Start every service report with the identification fields from the official quantitative template. Treat these as publication metadata, not as a marketing cover page.

The publication record should be enough for a reader, auditor, or Digital Services Coordinator to tell which service, reporting period, version, and previous report the file relates to.

  • Name of the service provider.
  • Name of the service, using the same name across the CSV/XLSX file, public landing page, statement-of-reasons database account, and prior reports.
  • Date of publication of the report and date of publication of the latest previous report.
  • Starting date and ending date of the reporting period.
  • Version label when a prior report is corrected, with a short explanation of the changed figures, methodology, and correction date.
  • Public URL where the ODF CSV report is available, plus any accessible summary or XLSX copy if published alongside the required machine-readable file.
Section 3

Cadence and retention fields

The template should contain explicit cadence fields because Article 15 reports and Article 42 VLOP/VLOSE reports run on different publication rhythms.

Use the official dates only where they are supported by the implementing regulation. Do not invent service-specific deadlines unless they come from the service's designation or the provider's own first reporting cycle record.

  • Annual DSA transparency reports for intermediary services, hosting services, and online platforms cover 1 January to 31 December once the harmonised cycle applies.
  • VLOPs and VLOSEs publish at least every six months, but the reporting cycle start depends on the designation date and the biannual cycles are not harmonised.
  • Reports must be publicly available no later than two months after the reporting period ends.
  • The harmonised templates apply from 1 July 2025; the first full annual harmonised cycle for non-VLOP/VLOSE providers covers 1 January to 31 December 2026.
  • The first VLOP/VLOSE cycle using the harmonised templates covers 1 July to 31 December 2025.
  • Retain transparency reports, including all published versions, for at least five years after publication.
Section 4

Quantitative tables to include

Use the official quantitative template sections as the spine of the report. Each table should keep the official applicability, service, reporting period, indicator, scope, value, and contextual-information logic so figures remain comparable across services.

Where a row applies and the result is zero, enter 0. Where the row cannot apply to the provider or service, leave it blank rather than forcing an invented zero.

  • Member State orders to act against illegal content: category of illegal content, Member State scope, number of orders, number of specific items, median time to acknowledge receipt, and median time to give effect.
  • Member State orders to provide information: category, Member State scope, number of orders, median acknowledgement time, and median time to give effect.
  • Article 16 notices: number of notices, trusted-flagger notices, number of specific items, action basis, automated processing, and median time to take action.
  • Own-initiative content moderation: number and type of measures affecting availability, visibility, accessibility, user ability to provide information, or monetisation, broken down by detection method and restriction type where required.
  • Online-platform redress: internal complaint-handling outcomes, out-of-court dispute settlement outcomes, implemented decisions, and suspensions for repeat misuse under the platform rows.
  • Automated means: number of measures or notices processed using automated means and indicators such as accuracy, precision, recall, and possible error rate where the official row applies.
  • VLOP/VLOSE additions: content-moderation human resources and linguistic expertise for VLOPs, and average monthly active recipients by Member State for VLOPs and VLOSEs.
Section 5

Qualitative narrative fields

The qualitative template should explain how the numbers were produced and what the moderation system did during the reporting period. It is not a substitute for the quantitative CSV/XLSX tables.

Keep qualitative text tied to the official indicators. Avoid adding generic policy statements that do not explain the reporting period, the service, or the measurement method.

  • Summary of content moderation engaged in at the provider's own initiative.
  • Meaningful and comprehensible information about own-initiative content moderation, including the policies, detection sources, and restriction types reflected in the quantitative rows.
  • Qualitative description of automated means used for content moderation.
  • Description of the indicators of accuracy and possible rate of error for automated means.
  • Specification of the precise purposes for which automated means are applied.
  • Safeguards applied to the use of automated means.
  • High-level description of the content-moderation governance structure.
  • For VLOPs where applicable: qualifications, training, support, and methodology for computing human resources dedicated to content moderation.
Section 6

Statement-of-reasons and DSA Transparency Database evidence

A transparency report is not the same as the DSA Transparency Database submission process, but the two datasets should reconcile for online platforms. Article 17 statements of reasons explain individual moderation restrictions to users, while Article 24(5) requires online platforms to send those statements to the Commission database.

Use the database as supporting evidence for online-platform reporting, especially for moderation restrictions, grounds, automated processing, free-text explanation fields, and the difference between public database data and internal source-of-record artifacts.

  • Keep a reconciliation table with report section, internal moderation-event source, statement-of-reasons submission count, DSA Transparency Database field, and variance explanation.
  • Do not include personal data in public database submissions; the Commission FAQ says providers must remove personal data before publication in the database.
  • Do not treat the database as a repository of the moderated content itself; it records statements of reasons and accompanying decision information, not the underlying content.
  • Account for database retention limits when preserving evidence: search data is retained for six months, daily CSV dumps for 18 months, and dashboard aggregates for five years according to the Commission FAQ.
  • For large data extracts, record whether evidence came from full or light daily archives because light archives omit certain long free-text attributes and territorial scope.
Section 7

Evidence tables to keep behind the public report

The public report should stay aligned with the official template. Keep operational evidence in supporting tables so reviewers can reproduce the figures without adding unofficial fields to the published CSV.

Each evidence table should identify the source system, extraction time, aggregation rule, owner, and reconciliation status for the official template row it supports.

  • Orders evidence table: order identifier, issuing Member State, legal basis or category, received timestamp, acknowledgement timestamp, action timestamp, item count, source queue, and report row.
  • Notice-and-action evidence table: notice identifier, notifier type, trusted-flagger status, item count, alleged illegality category, action basis, action timestamp, automation flag, and report row.
  • Own-initiative moderation evidence table: detection source, policy or law ground, restriction type, affected item count, user-notification status, statement-of-reasons link where applicable, and report row.
  • Complaints and dispute evidence table: complaint or dispute type, original decision, outcome, reversal status, median-time source, implementation status for out-of-court decisions, and report row.
  • Automated-means evidence table: tool name, precise purpose, measure or notice population, human-review rule, accuracy metric source, precision/recall source, error-rate explanation, safeguard, and report row.
  • VLOP/VLOSE evidence table: designation status, active-recipient calculation source, Member State breakdown, moderator headcount source, language expertise method, CEFR-B2 evidence for linguistic expertise, and report row.
  • Publication evidence table: public URL, CSV encoding check, XLSX copy if used, publication date, previous-report date, version label, correction note, retention review date, and source owner.
Section 8

Pre-publication checks

Before publication, check the report against the official template instead of against an internal checklist alone. The strongest review asks whether every required official row is complete, blank for a valid reason, or zero because the practice could have occurred but did not.

Keep the review short and reproducible so later corrected versions can explain exactly what changed.

  • The service tier is documented and every official applicability row has been assessed.
  • The quantitative and qualitative templates are both present, or any omission has a specific and objective reason.
  • Counts are integers, percentages are floating values in the 0 to 1 interval, and median times are stated in hours.
  • Rows that apply but produced no activity use 0; rows that cannot apply to the service are blank.
  • Illegal-content and incompatible-content categories reconcile to the official category logic and do not use provider-created high-level categories.
  • The public file is ODF CSV, UTF-8 encoded, and made easily accessible; any XLSX or narrative summary is supplementary.
  • All public versions remain available for at least five years and corrected versions are explicitly marked.
Primary sources

References and citations

digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Supports keeping source evidence for statements-of-reasons submissions, database downloads, light versus full archives, and retention limitations.
"The full archive files contain all variables"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Primary DSA source for Article 17 statement-of-reasons requirements and Article 24 platform transparency obligations.
"clear and specific statement of reasons"
Related guides

Explore more topics

DSA Ads and Recommender Systems: transparency duties, user choice, and evidence
A grounded DSA guide to ad labels, targeting restrictions, recommender parameter disclosure, non-profiling options for VLOPs and VLOSEs, ad repositories, and compliance evidence.
DSA Applicability Test: classify intermediary services, platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs
A source-grounded EU Digital Services Act applicability test for classifying intermediary services, hosting services, online platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs.
DSA Article 28 minors protection guide for online platforms
EU Digital Services Act guide to Article 28 minors protection: platform scope, child-safety measures, targeted ads limits, recommender controls, and grounded evidence.
DSA average monthly active recipients: what platforms must publish
A grounded FAQ on average monthly active recipients under the EU Digital Services Act, including publication, EU recipient scope, the 45 million VLOP/VLOSE threshold, and evidence records.
DSA Complaint and Dispute Workflows for Online Platforms
Build DSA complaint, appeal, statement-of-reasons, and out-of-court dispute workflows for online platform moderation decisions.
DSA crisis response for VLOPs and VLOSEs
EU Digital Services Act crisis response guide for VLOPs and VLOSEs: Article 36 Commission decisions, Article 48 crisis protocols, mitigation, governance, requests for information, and records.
DSA Dark Patterns: interface design checks for online platforms
Article 25 DSA guidance for reviewing online platform interfaces for deceptive, manipulative, or choice-distorting design patterns.
DSA Enforcement and Penalties in the EU
How Digital Services Act enforcement works: Commission and Digital Services Coordinator roles, VLOP and VLOSE investigations, fines, periodic penalty payments, and evidence readiness.
DSA illegal content notices: what must be included?
A grounded FAQ on EU Digital Services Act illegal-content notices: Article 16 notice elements, acknowledgement, decision notices, trusted flagger priority, statements of reasons, and records.
DSA Marketplace Trader Traceability FAQ
Answer to what EU Digital Services Act Article 30 requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, display, retain, and evidence for trader traceability.
DSA Marketplace Trader Traceability Guide
EU Digital Services Act guide for online marketplaces collecting, checking, displaying, storing, and evidencing trader traceability information.
DSA notice and action plus statements of reasons guide
A grounded Digital Services Act guide for notice intake, moderation decisions, statements of reasons, DSA Transparency Database submission, complaints, appeals, trusted flaggers, and records.
DSA Notice and Action Workflow for Hosting Services and Online Platforms
A grounded DSA notice-and-action workflow covering notice intake, completeness checks, trusted flaggers, decisions, user communications, statements of reasons, appeals, and records.
DSA recommender transparency FAQ: Article 27 and VLOP options
What EU Digital Services Act recommender transparency requires: main parameters, user options, VLOP/VLOSE non-profiling choices, and evidence to keep.
DSA researcher data access for VLOPs and VLOSEs
Article 40 DSA guide to vetted researcher data access for VLOPs and VLOSEs: DSC requests, eligibility checks, amendment grounds, confidentiality, security, and evidence records.
DSA service tier classifier for platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs
Classify a digital service under the EU Digital Services Act as intermediary, hosting, online platform, marketplace, VLOP or VLOSE, with EU recipient-count evidence and obligation outputs.
DSA statement of reasons FAQ
When DSA statements of reasons are required, what they must contain, when online platforms submit them to the DSA Transparency Database, and what appeal records to keep.
DSA statement of reasons log workflow for online platforms
Build a DSA statement of reasons log for moderation decisions, Transparency Database submission, complaint links, retention, and QA controls.
DSA Transparency Reporting Obligations by Provider Tier
A grounded guide to EU Digital Services Act transparency reports, active-recipient publication, statements-of-reasons submissions, VLOP/VLOSE reports, templates, cadence, and evidence.
DSA VLOP and VLOSE Risk Assessments and Mitigation Guide
Grounded guide to Digital Services Act systemic risk assessments, mitigation measures, audits, transparency reports, data access, and governance evidence for VLOPs and VLOSEs.
DSA VLOP Audit Pack Workflow: Risk, Mitigation, Audit, and Transparency Records
Build a DSA VLOP or VLOSE audit pack covering Article 34 risk assessments, Article 35 mitigations, independent-audit evidence, transparency reports, data access, and compliance governance.
DSA VLOP Risk Assessment FAQ: Article 34, Mitigation, Audits
What VLOPs and VLOSEs must assess under the EU Digital Services Act, when to reassess, how Article 35 mitigation and annual audit evidence fit together, and what records to keep.
DSA vs DMA Platform Rules
Compare the EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act by scope, designation thresholds, obligations, enforcement, evidence, and practical team ownership.
DSA vs GDPR: online-platform governance and personal-data obligations
Compare the EU Digital Services Act and EU GDPR by scope, ads, recommenders, minors, transparency, complaints, enforcement, and evidence.
DSA vs P2B Regulation: EU platform obligations compared
Compare the EU Digital Services Act with the Platform-to-Business Regulation for platform scope, business-user terms, content moderation, ranking transparency, complaints, enforcement, and evidence.
DSA vs Terrorist Content Online Regulation: notice-and-action vs removal orders
Compare DSA content-governance duties with the EU Terrorist Content Online Regulation removal-order workflow for scope, timing, evidence, authorities, and team ownership.
EU Digital Services Act checklist for platforms and hosting services
A grounded DSA checklist for classifying service tiers, notice-and-action, statements of reasons, complaints, transparency reports, ads, recommenders, trader traceability, VLOP/VLOSE duties, and evidence records.
EU Digital Services Act Compliance Guide
DSA compliance guide for intermediary services, hosting providers, online platforms, marketplaces, and VLOP/VLOSE teams: obligations, controls, and evidence to keep.
EU Digital Services Act FAQ: DSA scope, platform duties, VLOPs, reports, and penalties
Concise EU Digital Services Act FAQ covering intermediary-service scope, active-recipient thresholds, illegal-content notices, statements of reasons, trader traceability, recommender transparency, systemic-risk duties, reporting, penalties, and complaints.
EU Digital Services Act penalties and fines: caps and enforcement roles
DSA penalty caps and enforcement roles: Member State fines, Commission fines for VLOPs and VLOSEs, 1% procedural fines, and 5% periodic penalty payments.
EU Digital Services Act requirements by service tier
Overview of DSA obligations for intermediary services, hosting providers, online platforms, marketplaces, VLOPs and VLOSEs, including notices, complaints, ads, transparency reports, audits, data access and enforcement.
EU Digital Services Act service types and scope
Classify DSA service scope across mere conduit, caching, hosting, online platforms, marketplaces, online search engines, and VLOP/VLOSE threshold duties.
EU DSA deadlines and compliance calendar: application dates, reporting cycles, and VLOP clocks
Calendar view of grounded EU Digital Services Act dates: full application, user-number publication, VLOP/VLOSE designation clocks, statements of reasons, and transparency reporting cycles.
EU DSA Transparency Calendar: reporting, SoR database, AMAR updates
Build a DSA transparency calendar for annual reports, statement-of-reasons database submissions, active-recipient updates, and VLOP/VLOSE audit touchpoints.
EU DSA vs UK Online Safety Act: scope, duties, regulator, and evidence
Compare the EU Digital Services Act and UK Online Safety Act for platform scope, risk assessments, child protection, transparency, regulators, enforcement, and owners.